Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm pretty glad to have a Department of Justice that operates with some independence from the chief executive, lest we become a banana republic in more than just the economic sense. I understand that need to discredit the Department that a growing faction of the GOP feels, but I conclude that the country is more important than any political party, particularly one that doesn't even pretend to represent the masses anymore.

The Department, particularly the FBI is staffed by people whose education, background checks, training, etc. make them infinitely more trustworthy than the people trying to raise doubts about them, including but not limited to the chief executive and his non-supportive defenders. Knowing that the DOJ went into action when informed by the Aussies that Papadop was talking about the DNC hack before the DNC was, only reinforces my gratitude for the work that the Department does.

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm pretty glad to have a Department of Justice that operates with some independence from the chief executive, lest we become a banana republic in more than just the economic sense. I understand that need to discredit the Department that a growing faction of the GOP feels, but I conclude that the country is more important than any political party, particularly one that doesn't even pretend to represent the masses anymore.

The Department, particularly the FBI is staffed by people whose education, background checks, training, etc. make them infinitely more trustworthy than the people trying to raise doubts about them, including but not limited to the chief executive and his non-supportive defenders. Knowing that the DOJ went into action when informed by the Aussies that Papadop was talking about the DNC hack before the DNC was, only reinforces my gratitude for the work that the Department does.

Any thoughts on the prosecution of Howard Root?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Obviously, the case was misguided, mean-spirited and deeply troubling, but was it wrong? Howard Root hired an attorney to harass a writer who called him wrong, he also settled a false claim civil case for $520,000 identical to the case being prosecuted. If he was wrong in the Civil case, why did the criminal case fail?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Obviously, the case was misguided, mean-spirited and deeply troubling, but was it wrong? Howard Root hired an attorney to harass a writer who called him wrong, he also settled a false claim civil case for $520,000 identical to the case being prosecuted. If he was wrong in the Civil case, why did the criminal case fail?

No two cases are identical and just because he settled a civil case doesn't mean he was in the wrong...That I can tell you.

How else can we discredit the DOJ enough to get people to look the other way when the whip comes down in the Russia investigation? There are already two plea deals and two more indictments. We can't wait forever.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No two cases are identical and just because he settled a civil case doesn't mean he was in the wrong...That I can tell you.

It was the same product which was brought up on criminal charges. You know of course, that the DOJ allows language that rewrites the charges to give the impression there was no fraud involved as part of any settlement. Howard Root settled those charges, it does not mean he is completely innocent.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It was the same product which was brought up on criminal charges. You know of course, that the DOJ allows language that rewrites the charges to give the impression there was no fraud involved as part of any settlement. Howard Root settled those charges, it does not mean he is completely innocent.

The case that the DOJ was involved in was not settled it went to trial and he was acquitted without even calling a single defense witness.

Share on other sites

Yeah. I watched it and then did a little digging because it didn't ring true. It was the FDA that came after him for mislabeling medical devices. It was labeled and marketed as something to clear out the heart. They also sold it for clearing out other veins that had not been approved by the FDA. Got off by saying their sales could tell the truth to doctors about the capabilities of the tech (which I'd think they are correct about). Spent $25 million on the defense. That's 'Thou Doth Protest' money but hey, it's America.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So, Dog, if I’ve got this right, you got your Fautrage up over a persecution that didn’t end in a conviction. Do you think ALL persecutions end in convictions? What rate of conviction would be ok?

No, you don't have it right, but why would you. It's about a baseless prosecution that never should have been brought in which an innocent defendant didn't even need to offer a defense to be acquitted. The larger point however is about a corrupt culture at the Department of Justice. A culture which destroys lives in the pursuit of convictions or settlements as opposed to pursuing justice.

No, you don't have it right, but why would you. It's about a baseless prosecution that never should have been brought in which an innocent defendant didn't even need to offer a defense to be acquitted. The larger point however is about a corrupt culture at the Department of Justice. A culture which destroys lives in the pursuit of convictions or settlements as opposed to pursuing justice.

One questionable instance does not a corrupt culture make. You're stretching.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yeah. I watched it and then did a little digging because it didn't ring true. It was the FDA that came after him for mislabeling medical devices. It was labeled and marketed as something to clear out the heart. They also sold it for clearing out other veins that had not been approved by the FDA. Got off by saying their sales could tell the truth to doctors about the capabilities of the tech (which I'd think they are correct about). Spent $25 million on the defense. That's 'Thou Doth Protest' money but hey, it's America.

Nothing sells books like Fauxtrage. The timing is perfect for him, with current events demanding that Real Americans do their part to discredit the DOJ.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The FAA once told me to land on a runway occupied by another airplane. FAA is bad, get rid of them.

The EPA hassled me over a "wetland" once. Get rid of them.

The FDA approved Thalidomide. Get rid of them.

The Army killed their own men with artillery fire. Idiots can't aim a gun, get rid of them.

The Navy was too busy spanking their monkeys to notice Japan sneaking up on Pearl Harbor. Get rid of them.

The CIA didn't notice the 9-11 plot and neither did the FBI. Get rid of them both.

Congress are a bunch of cynical fuckwits who line their own pockets and do a crap job running the country on a good day. Get rid of them.

All we need is Trump. All things are Trump. Trump will save us. Help us be reborn in the perfect light of Trump.

Clearly government should be one emperor and some lackeys.

Dog - Do you REALLY think a criminal president gutting the DOJ to keep himself in power and out of jail will work *just once* and then we will be back to normal? Suggest you read the Bernie Gunther detective series and see what happens when the course of justice is perverted in that manner.

Here is a hint: It didn't fix itself, we had to do it with high explosives.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lets give Dog a chance - In some alternative universe where he has no access to news, he just *might have* randomly hit on DOJ reform when they are investigating his best buddies. Through some quantum entanglement across the multiverse our version of Dog could have this idea totally independent of his canine Trump defending instincts in this universe.

Could happen.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yeah. I watched it and then did a little digging because it didn't ring true. It was the FDA that came after him for mislabeling medical devices. It was labeled and marketed as something to clear out the heart. They also sold it for clearing out other veins that had not been approved by the FDA. Got off by saying their sales could tell the truth to doctors about the capabilities of the tech (which I'd think they are correct about). Spent $25 million on the defense. That's 'Thou Doth Protest' money but hey, it's America.

“Pharmaceutical sales representatives are prohibited from discussing off-label usage unless a physician asks explicitly. However, many companies have ignored this rule outright by teaching their salesmen to tout the benefits of prescribing a drug for other patient populations. In the most blatant cases, manufacturers have even hosted sponsored dinners and vacations where they gave presentations to doctors and healthcare providers about the benefits of different unapproved uses of a medication.”

Quoted in full but I’m not sure how common abuse is. In my world it seemed to almost stop under Obama. I think the usual course is arranging a peer to peer discussion with a technical services doctor who can provide any off label research and antidotes. Some off label use is a very good thing. Games are played as well. I saw a company broaden the label on an older drug about to go generic, gaining indications the competing generics lacked. This can affect which can be legally prescribed in some instances. I’m In a fringe field, others may have different observations.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lets give Dog a chance - In some alternative universe where he has no access to news, he just *might have* randomly hit on DOJ reform when they are investigating his best buddies. Through some quantum entanglement across the multiverse our version of Dog could have this idea totally independent of his canine Trump defending instincts in this universe.

Could happen.

I get it... You can't objectively assess Root's expose of the DOJ's behavior because Trump.

“Pharmaceutical sales representatives are prohibited from discussing off-label usage unless a physician asks explicitly. However, many companies have ignored this rule outright by teaching their salesmen to tout the benefits of prescribing a drug for other patient populations. In the most blatant cases, manufacturers have even hosted sponsored dinners and vacations where they gave presentations to doctors and healthcare providers about the benefits of different unapproved uses of a medication.”

Quoted in full but I’m not sure how common abuse is. In my world it seemed to almost stop under Obama. I think the usual course is arranging a peer to peer discussion with a technical services doctor who can provide any off label research and antidotes. Some off label use is a very good thing. Games are played as well. I saw a company broaden the label on an older drug about to go generic, gaining indications the competing generics lacked. This can affect which can be legally prescribed in some instances. I’m In a fringe field, others may have different observations.

Bolded part? Spot on.

Big hijack - I have some dated experience w/FDA labeling - when I was in-between Medicaid projects back in 1998-Y2K I did some stuff for the Orthopedic Manufacturing division of J&J (they made knees, hips, rods, etc) . They had an antiquated labeling system in which every component was at least 5 years beyond end of life - they couldn't update it, because doing so nullified the FDA approval for the orthopedic devices for which the system generated labels - if some component had died, they would be unable to ship product until some new-old-stock replacement was scrounged.

The point? A regulatory agency's intentions may be good - but if the implementation is too rigid? It's an impediment, and needs to be addressed. As it pertains to this story? I'd want to understand more about the mislabeling before I decided where culpability should be assigned. They guy might indeed be a shyster trying to push unapproved devices/procedures - and it might be an instance of an overly restrictive regulation - understanding which this is closer to would impact my opinion.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

i watched, and on the face his presentation seemed to spell out 'enormous fuckery' wrt the doj. however, i don't have access to the full other side of the story so therefore i cannot say for certain 'doj good/bad'. my question for dog is this, if i am to presume root's side of the story is the 100% correct side, are you using this to cast doubt towards the current doj investigation into the cic and his people?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Big hijack - I have some dated experience w/FDA labeling - when I was in-between Medicaid projects back in 1998-Y2K I did some stuff for the Orthopedic Manufacturing division of J&J (they made knees, hips, rods, etc) . They had an antiquated labeling system in which every component was at least 5 years beyond end of life - they couldn't update it, because doing so nullified the FDA approval for the orthopedic devices for which the system generated labels - if some component had died, they would be unable to ship product until some new-old-stock replacement was scrounged.

The point? A regulatory agency's intentions may be good - but if the implementation is too rigid? It's an impediment, and needs to be addressed. As it pertains to this story? I'd want to understand more about the mislabeling before I decided where culpability should be assigned. They guy might indeed be a shyster trying to push unapproved devices/procedures - and it might be an instance of an overly restrictive regulation - understanding which this is closer to would impact my opinion.

Between building one of those medical carts with a computer and various sensors for the DOD and good friends working for a company that makes medical devices, I can sympathize. The FDA is like the FAA on meth when it comes to paperwork and compliance. OTOH our products work and don't kill people for the most part.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

i watched, and on the face his presentation seemed to spell out 'enormous fuckery' wrt the doj. however, i don't have access to the full other side of the story so therefore i cannot say for certain 'doj good/bad'. my question for dog is this, if i am to presume root's side of the story is the 100% correct side, are you using this to cast doubt towards the current doj investigation into the cic and his people?

Dog wouldn't do that.

Not without checking out todays talking points first.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In other news, no reason to watch "The Americans" anymore. The 80s era KGB sneaks around doing relatively trivial stuff and the 2017 version has their sleeper agent in the freaking White House busy dismantling the FBI and State Department. YCMTSU and it beats the fictional agents all to hell!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Between building one of those medical carts with a computer and various sensors for the DOD and good friends working for a company that makes medical devices, I can sympathize. The FDA is like the FAA on meth when it comes to paperwork and compliance. OTOH our products work and don't kill people for the most part.

You're absolutely right - and my point wasn't to suggest that we should have NO regulation, rather, that well meaning people in regulatory authorities have unintentionally created problems and expense - and that those who point this out aren't always evil bastards trying to get over on the system.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

i watched, and on the face his presentation seemed to spell out 'enormous fuckery' wrt the doj. however, i don't have access to the full other side of the story so therefore i cannot say for certain 'doj good/bad'. my question for dog is this, if i am to presume root's side of the story is the 100% correct side, are you using this to cast doubt towards the current doj investigation into the cic and his people?

That was not my intention however I understand that an indictment of the DOJ culture would naturally cast doubt on all its activities. I suspect this is why my critics (for political reasons of their own) would much rather change the subject to me and my motives than to consider the Root prosecution on its own merits.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You're absolutely right - and my point wasn't to suggest that we should have NO regulation, rather, that well meaning people in regulatory authorities have unintentionally created problems and expense - and that those who point this out aren't always evil bastards trying to get over on the system.

For sure. I bought Navy surplus excellent safe 4 point seatbelts, put them in a Cessna using the factory installed mounting points, and had the FAA require me to get rid of them and use the approved but absolutely shitty Cessna 3 point belts

The FCC/USCG was basically forced into allowing cheap Class B AIS because the units were available from foreign sources and were going to get used anyway.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That was not my intention however I understand that an indictment of the DOJ culture would naturally cast doubt on all its activities. I suspect this is why my critics (for political reasons of their own) would much rather change the subject to me and my motives than to consider the Root prosecution on its own merits.

i'm not sure i understand you...if we are to consider the root prosecution on its own merits, how exactly does this cast a doubt on ALL doj activities? the doj is failry large last time i checked. could the doj as a whole not fall under the same defense as root? i.e. i can't control what all my salesmen say and do?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

i'm not sure i understand you...if we are to consider the root prosecution on its own merits, how exactly does this cast a doubt on ALL doj activities? the doj is failry large last time i checked. could the doj as a whole not fall under the same defense as root? i.e. i can't control what all my salesmen say and do?

Point taken, clearly there are both good and bad civil servants in the DOJ.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That was not my intention however I understand that an indictment of the DOJ culture would naturally cast doubt on all its activities. I suspect this is why my critics (for political reasons of their own) would much rather change the subject to me and my motives than to consider the Root prosecution on its own merits.

If this were a slow news month and the DOJ was just doing nothing important, I might maybe give a shit. If you actually care about DOJ and FDA regulations and this has nothing at all to do with fucking up the Trump investigations I will put sauce on the computer I am typing on and eat it

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If this were a slow news month and the DOJ was just doing nothing important, I might maybe give a shit. If you actually care about DOJ and FDA regulations and this has nothing at all to do with fucking up the Trump investigations I will put sauce on the computer I am typing on and eat it

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Point taken, clearly there are both good and bad civil servants in the DOJ.

is there? i don't even know if that is 100% true.

in root's case, he presents quite a compelling case for his prosecutorial team as bad civil servants, but without the their side of the story i cannot say with any certainty one way or the other...neither can i completely support the assumption that both good and bad exist as a whole in the entire department.

per the thread title, i'm of the notion that you don't agree with that, thus my questions and confusion

Big hijack - I have some dated experience w/FDA labeling - when I was in-between Medicaid projects back in 1998-Y2K I did some stuff for the Orthopedic Manufacturing division of J&J (they made knees, hips, rods, etc) . They had an antiquated labeling system in which every component was at least 5 years beyond end of life - they couldn't update it, because doing so nullified the FDA approval for the orthopedic devices for which the system generated labels - if some component had died, they would be unable to ship product until some new-old-stock replacement was scrounged.

The point? A regulatory agency's intentions may be good - but if the implementation is too rigid? It's an impediment, and needs to be addressed. As it pertains to this story? I'd want to understand more about the mislabeling before I decided where culpability should be assigned. They guy might indeed be a shyster trying to push unapproved devices/procedures - and it might be an instance of an overly restrictive regulation - understanding which this is closer to would impact my opinion.

A friend was a machinist for an artificial joint manufacturer during the great recession. He had good contacts with machinists in the auto-parts field. There was a flurry of activity as the various parts manufacturers faced a world without Daimler Chrysler (Kokomo, Detroit) and GM (Fort Wayne, Detroit, etc). Most of them would not have survived on Honda and Ford alone. As they kicked into survival mode several began trying to switch to the bionic biz. They quickly realized how complicated the documentation and paper trail was. The bailouts came before anybody got very far, or went bankrupt. The same regulations that protected the orthopedic industry in Warsaw IN from nearby auto parts companies also protects it (and us) from Chinese competition. That doesn't bother me. Sending an inspector to China every few months somehow doesn't inspire the confidence I would need to have a Kawei part inserted in my body. I want it made right every time. As you said, regulations can be vital or overly rigid, sometimes at the same time.

About a decade ago there was a warning in Indiana that Chinese x ray equipment bought online was showing up in medical offices. None of it was passing inspection. Fortunately even Indiana does some inspections (much less rigorous than Ohio, which likely goes too far). If a libertarian doctor didn't report the equipment to the state they could have used it until the technicians succumbed.

Sorry for the hijack of your hijack.

Were the 'system generated labels' you referred to the manufacturer's FDA approved statements on indications and use, or something else?